The first Christians weren't Bible Christians

[Aractus]

Your claim that the RCC made their decision on the Canon in the 16th Century is way, way, WAY false!

Really? Then explain why at the Council of Trent they decreed that the Latin Vulgate was Sola Scriptura? Here is the decree:

Here are the important bits...

• But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

and

• Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

The RCC rejected any translations made from the original languages and not from Latin and they excommunicated and then persecuted the pontiffs who dared create them.

Nope, Pope Damasus (382) listed the current books in the new testament and OT Canon as it is in the Catholic Bible. the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century formed the Catholic Canon which the Church always accepted. THe Canon was confirmed, reafirmed, reaffirmed, reaffirmed, and then closed.

Not accurate at all, that's before the Catholic Church as we know it.

In the 16th Century the Canon came under attack so the Church had to once again define "THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON".

No it didn't, the canon was never threatened. The protestants preferred the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and to translate from these, and the RCC decreed themselves to be the sole authority over scripture and the interpreter of the scripture.

When is the first RCC approved translation into English of the Bible to use the original Greek and Hebrew?

Hell, the early list of Biblical translations into English from the original languages are... Tyndale, Coverdale's Bible (the first complete English Bible), Matthew(/Taverner's Edition), Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops and Authorised Version. The RCC had Tyndale executed and burned at the steak, they also had John Rogers executed and burned at the steak too. Creating translations of the Bible from the original languages was a heresy in the eyes of the RCC, and so too was rejecting the authority of the RCC. The RCC persecuted those who distributed or possessed these Bible, and they burned the Bibles. The Great Bible is the first English Bible that was authorised by a Church (the CoE).

Now that you've reminded me of it, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum banned all non-Catholic approved translations of the Bible (Pope Paul IV, 1559) and it was abolished by Pope Paul VI in 1966 just 18 years after its last official revision was made in 1948!

More to the point though, it was in 1229 at the Council of Toulouse that it was decreed that the laity were forbidden to possess copies of the Bible and again in 1234 at the Council of Tarragona. Catholics have a hard time explaining this and typically they'll state that the councils are not official or other such nonsense, well if that's the case then explain this:

• We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)
  
  ‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

In 1526 Tyndale's Bible was the first complete New Testament translated into English. The Catholics got their first version, the Douay–Rheims in 1582 (NT portion) translated entirely from the Vulgate and not the Greek.

So, remember when I asked you when the RCC first got their approved English translation translated from the Greek and Hebrew? The Douay-Rheims version was completed in 1610 and it was the only English version approved and used by the RCC until 1966 when the Jerusalem Bible was completed. TJB was not directly translated from Greek and Hebrew, although it did use them the main textual basis for the translation was La Bible de Jérusalem. The RSV-CE was however also approved by the RCC and released in 1966 (the translators comprised of Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and even Jewish scholars). The NJB was completed in 1985 and was the first English translation have been translated by the RCC exclusively by Catholic Scholars whose primary textual basis were the Hebrew and Greek texts. 480 years after Tyndale! Protestants by that time had more than 30 translations in English.

[Belev2Know]

Interesting Arac:

for some other balance, I was reviewing Dogherty, found misgivingly; and Dawkins and a Hawkins and jung:
then the likes of Derek Prince and his scholarship from King's... and CS Lewis.

Just seems if i were to build a called-out group,
it would be more than on just some one named 'pebbley' or 'stoney' or called then Petros;
but
would 'build' on a knowledge called petra, "rock"... of some direct connective
-other than that of which-
mis-historicals, and mis-interpretors, and other human-heart-thinking-centers could- if they could- merely disuay

---

That recorded conversation of Peter with Jesus asking
"Who do you say that I am?"
-so to understand simply,
but Jesus' seemed-awareness of how Peter knew to be "built" on other knowledge about Jesus on Earth, not passed on by humans;
and later seems even more so, respecting Paul in this as recorded scripture Col 2:9 ; I Cor 3:17; Titus: "Great Savior God" (lit Grk) Jesus, himself and other writ; "...Lord is the spirit (some 'Spirit' transliterated).

re: OP it would seem "I will write it on their hearts" was being fulfilled of a whole Hebraic 'law'

[Aractus]

Your post is incomprehensible.

[Belev2Know]

Hi :
At what sentence?
could you specify?

Is it that jesus 'building' on a rock of knowledge of "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you"?
or
do you see Peter as petros and petra, too, which RCC say the ecclesia is built on?

please explain.
I can not understand you.

ACTS 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

but I agree there were scritptural followers of the Way called little-Christs by pagans, long before the 4th century and othe RCC claimed beginnings...

please just ask a question at a first stumbling in a first idea...

[Phatt Matt s]

You follow cherished Myths about the Catholic Church propagated by those who refuse to acknowledge Historical facts and rewrite History so that they have some of what appears to be credibility.

The Church never added seven books. Early Christians accepted the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals. Martin Luther removed them in the 16th century. The Septuagint which was the Old and New Testament translated by about 70 to 72 Jewish scholars into Greek, which was the popular language of the time. The entire New Testament was written in Greek and the Jews who rejected the Apocrypha (because it was written in Greek) at the council of Jamnia, also rejected Christ and the whole New Testament.

Early Christians accepted the Deuterocanonicals until the time of Martin Luther, more than 1500 years later. In the first four centuries, Church leaders generally recognized these seven books as canonical and Scriptural, following the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome in 382. The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus(fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus(450) include the (unseperated) Deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran contained the book of Tobit. Christians accepted the Apocrypha until the reformation.

Where from the Bible did Martin Luther get the authority to take them out? He wasnt soloscriptura afterall.

Bishop Mileto of Sardis, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Wusebius, and Bishop of Caesarea, were some of the various Bishops of the Catholic Church who decided which list of books was to be in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Pope Damasus 382 AD prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books. The Council of Hippo in 393AD approved that these books were dvinely inspired. The Council of Carthage (in North Africa 397AD) approved the same OT and NT Canon. It was Catholic Bishops who decided which books would be in the Bible. Jesus did not leave his early followers with a Bible, he left them with a Church.

The Bible is a Catholic book and Protestant Churches get their Bible and many of their traditions from the Roman Catholic Church. The founding Father of the Protestant reformation was a Catholic Priest and every protestant denomination can trace itself back to the Catholic Church.

THe First Protestants took the Catholic BIBLE
Do you get your Bible from the Catholic CHurch? The inventors of Protestantism did

The printing press was invented 65 years before Luther's revolt; and according to Hallam, a Protestant historian, the Catholic Bible was the first hook ever printed. In 1877 there were exhibited hundreds of old Bibles, at South Kensington, England; it was called the “Caxton Exhibition," and among them were nine German editions of the Bible, printed in Germany before Luther was born; and there were more than one hundred editions of the Latin Bible, the very thing Luther is pretended to have "discovered."

Also, you do not understand the definition of solascriptura my friend. Solascriptura means that the BIble is the only and absolute authority. The problem with that is, two people who claim the Bible is their final authority often come to the opposite opinions and both have Scripture to back their claim. But they refuse to accept and obey an authority outside of Scripture. THis behavior, philosophy, and Doctrine, was not Christianity prior to the 16th Century.

[Belev2Know]

T:

ya need a little more info.

i may not write so well, but
please get some of the 5500 documents pre 4th century things in view...

"the church" is universally="catholic" in understanding that word - in as a core, any as Peter who believe on the revealed knowledge of 'a calling' - "not revealed by that of flesh"

-have not even delved here into the 'received text' of say the KJV english from the greek nor the new translations 'wescot horte nestle's ' or the like and why it was older but seemingly unused... of the Grk.

another place for more study as well:
Grad of Kings College, Philosophy, etc, many years a teacher of Hebrew and Greek and more...
the late Derek Prince , and others have quite a different view if history as yours is...

unashamedly still today such things as before the 4th century Cannon's, etc's. are still examples of the Rock of the building of the universal Church... and always 'rediculous' to many as you have judged visions and receiving revelation


http://www.openheaven.com/library/articles/prince.htm

---

still seems in question: What was the CHURCH before the 300's, to you; but this is not a question to historical science

[Phatt Matt s]

T:

ya need a little more info.

i may not write so well, but
please get some of the 5500 documents pre 4th century things in view...

"the church" is universally="catholic" in understanding that word - in as a core, any as Peter who believe on the revealed knowledge of 'a calling' - "not revealed by that of flesh"

-have not even delved here into the 'received text' of say the KJV english from the greek nor the new translations 'wescot horte nestle's ' or the like and why it was older but seemingly unused... of the Grk.

another place for more study as well:
Grad of Kings College, Philosophy, etc, many years a teacher of Hebrew and Greek and more...
the late Derek Prince , and others have quite a different view if history as yours is...

unashamedly still today such things as before the 4th century Cannon's, etc's. are still examples of the Rock of the building of the universal Church... and always 'rediculous' to many as you have judged visions and receiving revelation


http://www.openheaven.com/library/articles/prince.htm

---

still seems in question: What was the CHURCH before the 300's, to you; but this is not a question to historical science

What the Fuck!


You should be a comedian!

[Belev2Know]

and your historical or scientific question is?

---

pls study some more.

there is a bit more to "the church" of the followers of the way, friends and others before the 300's...

(eh?)

[Phatt Matt s]

Your post is incomprehensible.

I'd say incoherent. For it can to a certain extent be comprehensible. I was able to comprehend that he/she is not of this world or capable of making sense.

---

and your historical or scientific question is?

---

pls study some more.

there is a bit more to "the church" of the followers of the way, friends and others before the 300's...

(eh?)

Are you from a foreign country? No, the real question is you're not from this planet are you? Have you followed the discussion at all. Hello?

Christians had a Church and yes the Apostles had successors. Yes they had direction and an organized Christians body (underground but structured) in the first three centuries.

Now if you don't mind me asking, "who the fuck are you"?

[bluhatpill]

The Bible not to mention Christianity is based in Jewish Mysticism--the Kabbalah which is metaphysical in nature--all based on numbers (numerology) psychological archetypes (tarot and astrology) and how those are expressed in our lives. Metaphysics means comprehensive physics based mostly on numbers and psychology. If you have a very well versed education in metaphysics you will notice the Bible is all written metaphysical terms not literal ones.


Most of the Bible clearly express what Christians refer to as witchcraft and dark craft elsewhere but don't notice it in their own bibles because they decry metaphysics as occult arts or devil worship. So are not educated in it. Are ignorant of the fact they are reading a book they would consider a book of shadows if that book was called anything but the bible. The Bible itself admits to this is. There's been no deception in that respect.

If you asked any Christian if they would smite their neighbor they'd say no . But the US stating itself to be a Christian nation..well I think every country has noticed the US spend a lot of time smiting its neighbor. Of course we don't burn bulls in sacrifice anymore we just burn down entire civilizations ....

Milk for babies, meat for strong men which means belief systems of any sort are for un-self developed people. Beliefs are milk. Like milk people just swallow beliefs, it nourishes babies. We know that. Scientifically babies need milk...Adults don't really. We can get what milk provides from food that babies can't eat. Like cheese. Meat is spiritual precepts that one has to chew on a bit. Something babies can't do. And meat may be tough, may not taste good, may be challenging, hard to swallow.... But meat is responsible for a great many things like growth, and strength. That's metaphysics right there. A comprehensive way of observing something (instead of just swallowing it ). What religion is composed of is a great many unselfdeveloped people. Spiritually immature? Who could tell. But you can observe they are Emotionally immature--not self developed on an emotional level. Children believe in Santa Clause, adults believe in an entity called God who for all intents and purposes appears to be a grown up version of Santa Claus--he's got a list, he's checking it twice, gonna find out whose naughty or nice. If you aren't nice you get a piece of coal..coal burns by the way..like hell.

Nonetheless people will choose the Santa God story because because ..its comforting . How? How some omnipotent angry and unstable entity looking over your life is comforting is beyond me. We wouldn't willfully choose a rather limited human being to partner with but yet who would choose an allpowerful entity of that nature to partner with. Someone under a spell. Someone under hypnosis or otherwise in some altered state of consciousness.


Since no one studies metaphysics anymore (not to be confused with new age bs, which is reupholstered Christianity) no one knows what the Bible is composed of. Insanely enough, Christians don't know its a spell book. It says so right in there. "I"M A spell book. Go-SPEL. Spells (spel in old english) are usually hypnotic in nature-hypnosis depends on scripts. The bible states plainly that its SCRIPT-ures. A book of spells. Books of spells are used to ..cast spells. This is what the bible is telling ...go look at the bible its never been dishonest about this.....who can't see it. People who are under a spell.


Why can't Christians see this when its plainly written in the bible....because the spells are doing what intended. They are under a spell. You can't say the bible is not a functional article, its working all too well for its intended purpose.

Jesus did say , Forgiven them they have no idea what they are doing. Hard to argue with that.

To people who are literate and educated...its simply a means of knowing how people are brainwashed (to use a modern word).

Atheism is a step up from that undeveloped self. A leap of consciousness the breaking of the spel. You might not get it yet..or have all the answers but the first thing you notice is its like waking from a spel. And that people who can't get out from under it..act like they are walking under a spell. There's lots of anger there especially when you look how much damage is caused by three nearly identical religions Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. I can't blame them for that but then again its wasted anger, angry at something that doesn't exist. Just a spel, a story. The Bible says so itself.

And if you give even a cursory once over you'll find Christians don't even believe in their own faith. It's not a faith or belief system....

Maybe its the hypocrisy that makes people--atheists--angry.

For the person who is interpreting the bible in its correct terms.....its simply a means of knowing how undeveloped people are controlled.